Republicans: what's the end game?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Good joke. |
Anonymous
|
I think what we are seeing in the talk about dismantling social programs is a direct reaction to the excesses that have resulted over the past decades.
|
Anonymous
1. Anyone who already works in government knows that at least 50% of your colleagues are deadwood. Maybe you are deadwood yourself. So not "dismantle government" but get rid of deadwood. Improve efficiency. Justify your existence. (Like with the DOE.) Scary, right, I know? 2. Trump wants a trillion dollar infrastructure project. But maybe to pay for it, he wants to get rid of your do-nothing job. Too bad, so sad. 3. Social Security and Medicare won't be dismantled. But it has to be fixed. Democrats haven't offered a viable plan. Waiting 21 years until the surplus is used up is stupid. So reform will get done, but liberals won't have a seat at the table. Too bad again. 4. Tax revenues won't go down, they'll go up as the economy expands, perhaps at a somewhat slower pace, perhaps not. Another ridiculous leftist straw man. But hopefully the taxes will be used a little more wisely. It doesn't even have to be used vastly more wisely. 5% more efficient use of tax revenues, overall, would be a huge benefit to the economy. 5. Republicans don't want "the country" to look like anything. They want you to have the freedom to live your life the way you see fit within very wide parameters. But of course, liberals don't like that, because it means they have to leave other people alone to choose how to live their own lives, too. Only leftists have a grand socialist organizing agenda for how the "country" should "look." (Like Seattle, I guess. Or maybe Austin.) 6. Hereditary based political structure? 7. One person, one vote? You mean you're OK with a conservative Supreme Court that doesn't constantly overrule legislation approved by the majority of the population because they think they know best? 8. Now you're worried about foreign invaders? But not about Islamic terrorism? Not about illegal immigration? 9. Crumbling infrastructure...well Trump's got that covered, if the liberals don't block him. A trillion dollars should be enough to get the ball rolling. 10. Getting rid of useless government employees who perform no useful function--and there are lots of them--isn't dismantling government. It's making government better. Sorry if you're one of those employees honey. |
Anonymous
I agree. Corporate welfare and tax cuts and gimmes for the wealthy are completely out of control. |
Anonymous
| Is 15:05 drunk? |
Anonymous
It's a little early to be drinking sterno. |
Anonymous
NP, Let me just add to this the idea that, whatever the fed government no longer does the states are free to pick up the slack. So if CA, MA, and NY for example, want to provide additional benefits and services that the feds no longer provide then those states can tax the business and residents to provide those services. Some state governments may choose to provide more functions then they currently do (and increase taxes to do so) but that differentiation at the state level is consistent with the Constitution. |
Anonymous
No. I have lived and worked in countries where families have various layers of security down to the "rape" bars between the sleeping quarters and the rest of the home. I have spent plenty of evenings sitting in peoples' backyards walled in and with shards of glass lining the top of the cement perimeter. Middle class families have to devote a large portion of their income to home security. These are countries not necessarily beset by a Syria situation but where the income inequality could basically be represented by a small cliff ledge of the wealthy with a precipitous drop off for the rest of the population. Middle class families are not necessarily immune from kidnapping. These are countries with abysmal rates of tax collection and no safety net. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
| I'm not a typical modern Republican, so my answer may be a bit different. At this point, the end game for me would be a scaling back of the federal government, and much more power to the states. The Feds should be responsible for national defense and nothing else. Every other power should be given to the states. Georgia and Texas may ban abortion and gay marriage, and have no welfare programs. However, if people in California and NY want a more socialistic economy with welfare programs, they can pay for it with state taxes. So the type of society would depend on which state you live in. 3 cheers for STATES RIGHTS! |
Anonymous
 Best South Park ever!
|
Anonymous
Would be a disaster for taker red states like Mississippi |
Anonymous
|
To those saying they only want National Security to be handled at the Federal level, what does that mean? As I mentioned above, does that include a highway system? What about subsidies for agriculture so that we could withstand a siege?
Also, where do you stand with regard to the role of Federal government with respect to civil rights, which one might argue was the thing the Founders cared about most? Are you okay with some states going back to Jim Crow? Or massive voter suppression which was the reason the Voting Rights Act was passed? And how do interstate issues factor in? Rivers and airborne pollution stubbornly don't respect state boundaries, so if one state has drastically different environmental regulations than the other it can cause a lot of conflict. In the Western states, these conflicts are ongoing but mediated and kept under control at the Federal level. In other parts of the world, these kinds of issues crossing shared borders can be the cause of armed conflict. Since regulating "interstate commerce" is part of the Constitutional power granted to the Feds, what should it look like in the conservative fantasy. |
Anonymous
|
Liberals are terrified that Trump will actually be successful in cutting down the government jobs and programs which accomplish nothing except that's where they get their paychecks.
Most of them can be replaced by robots anyway. Non-functioning robots will do the trick. |
Anonymous
Ok, so what specific programs do the Republicans want to cut? I ask because most of the federal money goes to Department of Defense and Department of Agriculture programs that mostly benefit the military and farmers. Realize also that when Republicans talk about making the Federal Government smaller and leaving more options for the states themselves to fund, the result of that will be the transfer of money from NY, CA and MD to places like WV, AL and AR will end. Those states don't have the money to make up those programs. They don't have the corporate infrastructure, the wealth and knowledge base and resources. So the end result will be the subsidy that the so-called blue states provides to the red states will end. The blue states and DC will continue to fund things like paid family leave, health care etc while the red state residents will not have those benefits. You have likely already seen articles profiling Trump voters who want ACA to continue. Well it won't and to their detriment. With respect to the proposed $1T investment that Trump has floated, understand, what he is proposing is a glorified public-private partnership that will transfer public assets like roads and bridges into private interests. It will make the 1% even fatter at the expense of the poor stiffs who will have to pay tolls to use those assets where now, it is somewhat part of the gas tax. On your point #4, we have already seen trickle down economics not work a couple of times before. In fact, in the glory days of the post WW2 era, do you know what the spread between the CEO and line workers was? Do you know the marginal tax rates for top earners? Do a little research on this, please for your own good. |
Anonymous
Ok so you realize that most of the welfare in this country goes to the red states, right? Beyond that, how do you propose working standards be handled? What happens if there is discrimination? What specific programs should be cut? You want to cut the EPA? Fine, so you are ok with living in Flint then without the benefit of bottled water? How about fracking next door to where you live. You ok with that? You ok with lack of food testing at meat packing facilities? That might be cat you re eating, not beef. You ok with that? |